Chheddu v State of U.P 1999 SCC OnLine All 1439

FACTS

This case describes a dacoity that has taken place in Khajuria village. The structure of the houses was such that they shared a common space. At night, the men were sleeping outside their houses, when a band of dacoits entered into one of the houses and started looting. One of the men started a fire in the open space to provide some light, to get a grasp of the situation. Other than the fire, the house which was being looted also had lanterns burning. As the dacoits were plundering the home, several villagers assembled outside the house and started shouting at the dacoits. These villagers were carrying fire torches and so were the dacoits. Later on, when report was filed in the police station of the incident, the informants mentioned the name of a person of the neighbouring village, Chheddu , as one of the dacoits. They stated that they had seen his face on the night of the dacoity and had recognized him, as they were previously accustomed to each other.

ISSUE

The main contention of the defendants was that the witnesses had not seen the face of the accused and were lying about the fact situation, so as to fabricate him in a false case, as there was a history of blad blood between the accused and the petitioners.

LAW

1. 391 IPC, Dacoity.—When five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding, is said to commit “dacoity”.

S.395 IPC, Punishment for dacoity.—Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with 1 [imprisonment for life], or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine

APPELLANTS ARGUMENTS

The counsel of the accused-appellant contended that the night of the incident was a dark night and there being no sufficient source of light, it was not possible for the witnesses to have seen the face of the accused properly so as to guarantee that he was one of the dacoits.

The next argument that the accused-appellant gives is that he has been falsely implicated due to enmity. He accepted that he knew the informant from when he had visited his paan shop. He further stated that they had gotten into a heated argument and the informant had threatened him that he would see him.

RESPONDENTS ARGUMENTS

As regards to the contention about light and identification, the respondents have established the presence of several sources of light- the lanterns burning in the house, the torches of both the dacoits and the villagers as well as the fire that had been lit outside. Villagers carrying torches when called upon to witness an incident at night is not an unusual occurrence, nor is the carrying of torches by the dacoits, to help them commit the crime at night. Additionally, heap of ash was also found outside the house of the victim, corroborating the statement regarding the common fire being lit. Also, the witnesses have mentioned that they knew the accused from before. In that case, it was argued that it is not difficult to recognize a known face, in the presence of artificial and not so bright source of light.

As to the enmity, all the witnesses have categorically denied the presence of enmity between the informant and the accused, though they have admitted to the fact that they knew the accused as a resident of the neighbouring village, who owns a paan shop near the main road and that the informant used to visit the shop from time to time. It was also contended that even if enmity between the accused and the informant can be assumed, the accused has not contended enmity with any of the remaining witnesses, who too have stated that they saw him during the commission of the dacoity.

ANALYSIS

This is a classic case of dacoity, where one of the accused had been identified by the witnesses during the commission of the crime. The primary argument that the appellants hold is that the statements of the witnesses, putting the accused at the place of the crime cannot be relied upon. The contention that the accused could not be considered to be conclusively identified by the witnesses, needs a further look.

The appellants contend that the light present at the scene of the crime was not enough to recognize the accused conclusively and so, a conviction based on such identification by the witnesses should be set aside. Conviction by identification of witnesses is a common method of the Law of Evidence. The rule relating to identification evidence states that where the accused is someone whom the victim or the witness knew from before, the weight attached to their testimonies is significantly higher. In such a case of prior acquaintance between the accused and the witnesses, even a Test Identification Parade is not a necessity.

A Test Identification Parade is a tool under the Law of Evidence to allow the witness to recognize the accused while in the police custody. Such an identification acts as a corroboration for the identification of the accused in the court. Test Identification Parades are considered a rule of prudence, because they assure the police that they are investigating along the correct line.

But, the court has repeatedly held that where the accused is someone whom the witness knew from before or where the witness had an opportunity to have a good look at him while the commission of the crime or when the crime is of such a nature, that the appearance of the accused would e thought to

have been imprinted on the mind of the witness, Test Identification can be done away with and the statements of the witnesses can be accepted without any further corroboration.

In the given case, the accused was known to the witnesses. They had also interacted in a few occasions. Additionally, it had been established that there were sufficient sources of light at the scene of the crime. In such a case, the identification of the accused hols substantial authority and cannot be cast doubt upon.

JUDGMENT

The court held that by the accused’s statements, no motive had been imputed to the witnesses for falsely identifying him as one of the dacoits. The appellants have not been able to give any reasons as to why the witnesses would have wanted to implicate the accused. With respect to the contention of enmity between the accused and the informant, the statement of the accused is self-contradictory. On one hand he mentions that the informant had threatened him by saying that he would see him, on the other hand he contends that they had reconciled before the crime had even been committed.

In light of no reasonable motive being found for the witnesses and the informant to falsely implicate the accused by mentioning his part in the commitment of dacoity, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction of the appellant, Chheddu , under S.395 IPC was upheld.